Be Careful What You Wish For Part Two

By: Eddie Clements

President Elect Barack Obama conducted a Seinfeldian â€œcampaign about nothingâ€ which gained him the White House. After accidentally displaying his socialist intentions, an otherwise disciplined campaign achieved victory, tainted but admirable for its focus on getting out the vote in imaginative ways. Congratulations to President-Elect Obama and his many supporters; may they get what they paid for.

Senator John McCain lost all present and future influence, except with a few lobbyists and Democrats who will continue to use him for their purposes. His age puts him beyond another try, which he acknowledged in his concession speech. It is a sad and unfitting end for an honorable man who sacrificed much for his country, and believes in American ideals. In the presidential campaign, McCain led a charge of horse cavalry into Obamaâ€™s tanks, as the Polish Army did against Wehrmacht Panzers at the beginning of World War II. Like the Poles, it was not his fault; he fought bravely against insurmountable odds with what he had.

McCain was partly victimized by forces beyond his control. What he did control, however, was the rationale for running for president in the first place. His positions were barely distinguishable from the Democrat party agenda. Take the global warming initiatives: sketchy at best, and at worst a cap-and-trade proposal which would have created economic havoc, it faded to obscurity and could not be translated into a benefit after being hit with the economic â€œcrisisâ€ engineered by democrats. Notice how global warming has disappeared as an issue?

But the purpose here is not to kick Senator McCain while he is down; itâ€™s too easy and inappropriate for an honorable patriot. Instead, thanks to an irresponsible media, electorate, and Democratic Party, Americans are on our way to universal health care and universal wealth care. This election provides ample testimony to the adage that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

It is easy to think such vigilance is performed only by the military arm of a democracy, and those few who labor conscientiously at maintaining national security, watch foreign policy, and so forth. To the contrary, the phrase is aimed directly at those who must exercise the vote to decide who makes the law in a representative democracy. The military, by its nature, carries out orders, with comparatively little leeway for decision-making in the policy arena. It is civilian policy-makers who must be chosen with care. We have been all too careless.

Democrats got what they wished for â€¦ mostly. Now they have to take responsibility, not having Bush to kick around anymore.
However, if the housing and financial crisis is any guide, Democrats taking blame for anything is unlikely. More likely this begins the era of prosecutions of the innocent and widespread investigations of citizens perceived as enemies if Democrats get their way. The first step in that direction is Obamaâ€™s naming Rahm Emanuel to be his Chief of Staff.

Now thereâ€™s an enforcer! A strident partisan, heâ€™s no shy wallflower. Now we will find out what Obama means by â€œunitingâ€ and â€œcome togetherâ€. They sound like code words for â€œget in our way and we will destroy you.â€ He has put the man in place to do just that.

It calls to mind a story about Joseph Stalinâ€™s enforcer, secret police chief Levrenti Berya, questioning a soviet citizen at Lubiyanka Prison long ago. Under intense interrogation, the innocent detainee is supposed to have said, â€œFrom my answers I can understand how I could be under suspicion…â€ Berya interrupted with â€œNo, comrade! Look out the window and see those people outside walking around the streets freely. THEY are under suspicion. YOU are here to be found guilty of something, we just donâ€™t what it is yet.â€
Itâ€™s more likely dark Russian humor than a true story, but it captures the flavor of those times â€¦ and now these times as well. Think Scooter Libby, found guilty of speaking while conservative.

Mass defections by squishy RINOâ€™s to the Democrat Party should come as no surprise. The unprincipled will jump on the winnerâ€™s bandwagon as soon as they can pack their diddy-bags. What difference if the government is socialist or capitalist as long as they have a job in it? The exercise of power over the powerless is its own reward.

The dreams of the socialist state create powerful images: full racial and gender equality, more or less equal wealth (mostly less), universal health care, full employment, social safety nets, homes for everyone. No homeless â€¦ and no freedom.

Forcing haves to share with the have-nots, that seems attractive. What did that woman say on election day? â€œObama will pay for my gas and my mortgageâ€? That certainly is â€œthe kind of change we needâ€.

Achieving these pipe-dreams will require wholesale re-writing of the U.S. Constitution, a task our President-Elect finds not too daunting, in theory. That worthy document is all that stands between us, the public, and over-reaching, power-hungry demagogues like the erstwhile Democrats. In a radio interview in 2001, Barack Obama threatened murder of that â€œliving documentâ€. We can only assume he means it, and has no intention of â€œgoverning from the centerâ€ as Fox News bizarrely opines he will do. What evidence is there that he has any regard at all for the center? His whole career was built on devotion to leftist theories. He has in fact practiced them where possible. Anybody who believes he will appeal to centrism also believes he never heard Reverend Wright spout any of those hate-sermons, or that he was clueless about William Ayers.
In practice, amending the Constitution is difficult, made so by the genius of the Founding Fathers. What if there was some â€œemergencyâ€ that made it possible to â€œsuspendâ€ the provisions of the Constitution? Surely a plan is in the works from the guys who were so forward-looking with the presidential campaign. Suspend one thing, it all falls â€“ then just re-write from the beginning, or to make it easier, use the basic foundation but add what you want and discard the inconvenient parts, like the First and Second Amendments.

No? Have any other solid governments fallen, ever? Is Rome still around? The Persian Empire? Spain had the worldâ€™s largest empire at the time of Elizabeth. The undefeatable Spanish Armada was defeated, and ten years later Spain was bankrupt â€“ and has never recovered its former glory.

All that keeps this from happening is an untrustworthy drive-by media and Democrats in Congress. That being the case, we will reap what we have sown.